Jump to content
Kyyle23

Sports Media discussion

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, knightni said:

Heard Danny Parkins on CBS radio.

They gave him his own show.

His performance in interviews has been very good but still not someone i turn the dial to listen to, but that maybe due to mcneil for me (not a fan personally)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, knightni said:

Heard Danny Parkins on CBS radio.

They gave him his own show.

So who's with McNeil now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bmags said:

His performance in interviews has been very good but still not someone i turn the dial to listen to, but that maybe due to mcneil for me (not a fan personally)

There are pretty the same person. Parkins is a younger McNeil. Blowhard a$$holes. Although Parkins is more confrontations and admits he enjoys it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, soxfan2014 said:

So who's with McNeil now?

It's still Parkins with McNeil in the same slot. 

Parkins just has a late night sunday national show by himself now as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff Dickerson's wife passed away per his twitter yesterday. Very sad news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of media to teams recently.

Jeff Sullivan (fangraphs) -> Rays as an analyst

Jessica Mendoza (espn) -> Mets as a front office position yet still retaining sunday night baseball duties which is kinda weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

I mean.... she could have just replied, even once, and said no. Meh.

Exactly. Just ignoring then and playing this stupid game is childish on her part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some would think being ignored is the equivalent of saying "No thanks". I'm sure they would've kept contacting her as well to get rid of that Twitter strike.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Brian said:

Some would think being ignored is the equivalent of saying "No thanks". I'm sure they would've kept contacting her as well to get rid of that Twitter strike.

Well those people are wrong as its clearly not the same thing at all.

Either way, her narrative kind of falls apart when she spends the whole thread making fun of how desperate they are before revealing the totally legitimate reason for their desperation.

Edited by KiwiSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KiwiSox said:

Well those people are wrong as its clearly not the same thing at all.

Either way, her narrative kind of falls apart when she spends the whole thread making fun of how desperate they are before revealing the totally legitimate reason for their desperation.

Kiwi, ask me to loan you $10. When I don't respond, What would you assume my response is?

They used her content without credit. She filed her complaint. Stool should've just moved on. As if they don't get enough negative publicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it started out with them ignoring her.

If you're going to allow user submitted content without verifying the source, then you should probably respond to someone who wants credit for their video or their video taken down.  Not that I believe that's what happened here, based on her last tweet it seems like they just straight up stole it and used the user submitted content thing as an excuse.

The "totally legitimate" reason for their desperation because a lot less legitimate when they ignore her until she filed the DMCA takedown.  Just do business properly and it wouldn't have made it anywhere near that point.

The $50 giftcard to their bootleg store offer is pretty comical as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Brian said:

Kiwi, ask me to loan you $10. When I don't respond, What would you assume my response is?

They used her content without credit. She filed her complaint. Stool should've just moved on. As if they don't get enough negative publicity.

I'd say the stakes here a little higher than $10. I really dont know anything about Barstool Sports, I've never consumed their content except for a couple episodes of Pat McAfee's show, but I'd imagine their Twitter account is a fairly valuable thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd honestly be surprised if she did respond to them after all and encouraged this behavior. These people on the internet are always lying, almost 100% of what you read on social media is an outright lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KiwiSox said:

I'd say the stakes here a little higher than $10. I really dont know anything about Barstool Sports, I've never consumed their content except for a couple episodes of Pat McAfee's show, but I'd imagine their Twitter account is a fairly valuable thing.

They have a long history of being a trash company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KiwiSox said:

I'd honestly be surprised if she did respond to them after all and encouraged this behavior. These people on the internet are always lying, almost 100% of what you read on social media is an outright lie.

Or confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Heads22 said:

They have a long history of being a trash company.

And things people say on Twitter have a long history of being bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, KiwiSox said:

And things people say on Twitter have a long history of being bullshit.

Yea but deadspin isn't denying anything that happened nor are they calling her story a lie.  Portnoy even said that offer made them look like bigger assholes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Yea but deadspin isn't denying anything that happened nor are they calling her story a lie.  Portnoy even said that offer made them look like bigger assholes

Right but it's still dishonest when she is fishing for this exact reaction. None of this is happening organically...she wanted Barstool to grovel. The professional thing to do is accept or refuse their offers not ignore them like a child because they are supposedly racist and sexist (which I really doubt they are).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ChiSox said:

I mean it started out with them ignoring her.

If you're going to allow user submitted content without verifying the source, then you should probably respond to someone who wants credit for their video or their video taken down. 

You can't possibly expect them to vet every video that gets sent their way to figure out where the original source is from, right? Look how many versions of the same videos you can find on Youtube and Facebook uploaded across dozens of accounts. How do you expect them to know who the original is, especially when it's snapchat videos.

I would argue they DID respond to someone who wanted credit. They reached out to her dozens of times across a variety of platforms to get her attention. She has every right to just say "No, fuck off" even one damn time and then she's totally got all the sympathy. But acting childish and ignoring them to.....try to prove a point I guess, makes her look bad too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

You can't possibly expect them to vet every video that gets sent their way to figure out where the original source is from, right? Look how many versions of the same videos you can find on Youtube and Facebook uploaded across dozens of accounts. How do you expect them to know who the original is, especially when it's snapchat videos.

I would argue they DID respond to someone who wanted credit. They reached out to her dozens of times across a variety of platforms to get her attention. She has every right to just say "No, fuck off" even one damn time and then she's totally got all the sympathy. But acting childish and ignoring them to.....try to prove a point I guess, makes her look bad too. 

Of course I don't expect that, I guess I should have been more clear in my original post.  Point is, when something slips through the cracks, you should probably respond to the request for credit or removal right away.  That doesn't even seem like that's what happened here anyways, according to her they posted it and credited one of their other accounts for the content.  She could be lying I guess, I don't know I don't consume any of either of their content, so didn't see their original post or hers.

And yea sure they eventually responded, but only when she escalated it and it directly affected them.  Shitty way to do business.  I suppose it's possible they didn't get her email, or she gave them an unrealistically short time frame between first email and DMCA takedown, who knows, but I kinda doubt it.

Not sure how saying fuck off is any less childish than ignoring them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChiSox said:

Of course I don't expect that, I guess I should have been more clear in my original post.  Point is, when something slips through the cracks, you should probably respond to the request for credit or removal right away.  That doesn't even seem like that's what happened here anyways, according to her they posted it and credited one of their other accounts for the content.  She could be lying I guess, I don't know I don't consume any of either of their content, so didn't see their original post or hers.

And yea sure they eventually responded, but only when she escalated it and it directly affected them.  Shitty way to do business.  I suppose it's possible they didn't get her email, or she gave them an unrealistically short time frame between first email and DMCA takedown, who knows, but I kinda doubt it.

Not sure how saying fuck off is any less childish than ignoring them. 

They didn't "eventually respond only when she escalated it". She never sent them an email. When she said she "asked for credit", she is referring to when she quote-tweeted their tweet and said that the video was actually hers. They have 1.5M followers on twitter. They can't possibly expect to see 1 person interacting with their tweet, especially by quote-tweeting it, because now it requires them to actually go to her page to see the tweet, instead of them reading the comments under their own tweet. 

She made no real effort to try to get their attention, and then made no real effort to respond to their attempts to reach out to her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS. They have social media people. They don’t use all content sent to them but the stuff they do, they should be crediting and doing research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×